On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:

Hello all,

<snip> the explanation is quite on point

Since this transition period is the one opportunity that the customers of IANA have to build a system that will serve them better in future, it is worth thinking about how to shift the culture.

Maybe we should not think of how to change the culture (as that may be beyond scope) but we should think of what we will include in the MOU/Contract or whatever mechanism that finally suffice. That will ensure that the community's contribution is noted to improve IANA improve operation.

The day-to-day of an Oversight Committee would likely be checking policies are being followed. But there also needs to be a mechanism/culture that encourages IANA to continuously improve based not on its or ICANN's agenda but on what its customers want.

+1 and i presume most part of that can also be achieved by policy.

The committee would need a stick and a carrot. ICANN /IANA would have to be obliged to make improvements (like clauses in a new contract) but the emphasis should be on how to reward improvements so the stick is not needed.

I agree but 'stick' needs to be clearly defined within the MOU/Mechanism. Remembering there is a stick is usually a good approach to ensure compliance.

IANA is not a stationary function and I think it would be smart to recognise that. I am concerned that because we have a lot of policy people and process people here but not many business folk that this group may draw up wonderful new structures that just add more process rather than focus on making the IANA functions a very efficient machine with happy customers.

Philosophical and conceptual issues aside, the bulk of IANA's Names work always be making changes and/or additions in response to existing customers' requests.

Correct and usually what may cause more of the delay in getting the records updated could be the intermediate processes which the community should look into as i don't think that will be within the scope of this cwg. However as you have said earlier, we need to include the necessary clauses/mechanism that enables the community's consensus based suggestions to be recognised by the IANA operator.

Thanks

Cheers!

Kieren

On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
True Maarten.

We should think deeply about a mechanism that will be as neutral in the stewardship oversight service delivery as the NTIA and at the same time has the legal enforceable powers to contract the IANA function operator.

Putting on my regulator hat, I think it may perhaps be best to have more of the non-direct customers of IANA functions in the "council" ("SLA council") than the operational communities. Still not sure of the name.

My feeling is that non-operators as the Overseer of the IANA function operator would gain more acceptability to all concerned than replicating what we have in ICANN with all the attendant accountability questions.

Mary Uduma

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

The key to understanding is humility - my view !